On Dec 14, 2015 12:12 AM, "DJ Lucas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In section 6.5.1, ran across these while digging intothe merged /usr for
systemd.
> > The FHS also stipulates the existence
of|/usr/local/games|and|/usr/share/games|.
>
> This is not entirely true. /usr/share/games is listed as optional now
(though it might be required for games in BLFS).
> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs.html#specificOptions15
> Add a comma after "/usr/local/games" and append "if the corresponding
subsystem is installed." Maybe a link to BLFS if it is required, or just
exclude it?
>
> Additionally...
> >The FHS is not precise as to the structure of
the|/usr/local/share|subdirectory,
>>
>> so we  create only the directories that are needed.
>
> Actually, it now says specifically that it should be the same as
/usr/share.
> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs.html#requirements10
>
> As to what I was actually looking for tonight, any particular reason that
the /usr merge has not been revisited inthe systemd book? I still like the
idea of separate /usr in the main book, there are quite a few important
concepts to be learned bykeeping them separate. I believe (IIRC) it was
omitted originally due to FHS 2.3. After review, I am merging locally. I
figured I'd bring it up here too, in case there is any interest in
revisiting it.
>
> Looking at
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/ I
see specifically:
> > Note that this page discusses a topic that is actually independent of
systemd.
>>
>> systemd  supports both systems with split and with merged /usr, and the
/usr
>> merge  also makes sense for systemd-less systems. That said we want to
encourage
>>  distributions adopting systemd to also adopt the /usr merge.
>
>
> I recall some horror stories in the past, but have zero evidence of that.
My rationaleis simply that the systemd developers "encourage" it, I know
first hand that it's easier, and the FHS does specifically allow this
(without actually recommending it) now:
> From http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s02.html
>>
>>
>> The  following directories, or symbolic links to directories, are
required
>
> in /.
>>
>>
>
> I'm moving along at a snail's pace with this build as I'm packaging using
pacman, basically starting from scratch as my old LFS PKGBUILDs are
hopelessly out of date (and for a completely different build type anyway),
but I expect that not much will change. It'd basically need to loose any mv
bin/blah -> /usr/bin, same with /lib and vice versa, and any dual-homed
symlinks in /lib and /bin dirs if any still exist). If any interest, I'll
document changes as I go. I plan to work from the book sources anyway,
borrowing a few minor bits from Arch, but won't be all that different from
lfs-systemd when done (short of the above change). Instructions should
remain mostly the same for both books (pretty much as they are now), we
don't care about /usr vs / (only matters if packaging, in which case,
simply create the symlinks in DESTDIR before install).
>
> --DJ
>
>
Hi DJ,

After reading the page that you sent out in this email, I am truly
considering revisiting it. I didn't even know that the proposal existed.
When I run through my next build, I will take a look into the effort
required to implement this. This will simplify packaging for people that do
it, but it will also simplify porting of programs. I like it!

I have quite a few proprietary Unix applications (old versions of PVS
Version Manager and a few others) that require a ton of work to set up a
new machine from its HP-UX roots to Linux. My hope is that something like
this would simplify the process.

That said, I will experiment with it, but I have no guarantee of when I can
say anything about it. I will be more than happy to hear your results as
well. I wish I had more man-hours to dedicate to LFS, but I am so busy
right now that it is hard.

Douglas R. Reno
--(B)LFS systemd maintainer
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to